The Siege of Science

Vol. 8: 17–40, 2008 ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS Printed June, 2008 doi: 10.3354/esep00086 Ethics Sci Environ Polit Published online May 27, 2008 Contribution to the Theme Section ‘The use and misuse of OPENPEN bibliometric indices in evaluating scholarly performance’ ACCESSCCESS The siege of science Michael Taylor1,*, Pandelis Perakakis2, Varvara Trachana3 1Departamento de Astrofisica Molecular e Infrarroja (DAMIR), Instituto de Estructura de la Materia (IEM), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), Calle Serrano 121, Madrid 28006, Spain 2Departamento de Psicologia, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, Granada 18071, Spain 3Departamento de Imunologia y Oncologia, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología (CNB), Darwin 3, Campus de Cantoblanco, Madrid 28049, Spain ABSTRACT: Science is in a state of siege. The traditional stage for scientific ideas through peer- reviewed academic journals has been hijacked by an overpriced journal monopoly. After a wave of mergers and take-overs, big business publishing houses now exercise economic control over access to knowledge and free scientific discourse. Their ‘all is number’ rationale, made possible and perpet- uated by single-parameter bibliometric indices like the Impact Factor and the h-index has led to a measurement of scientists, science and science communication with quality being reduced to quan- tity and with careers hanging in the balance of column totals. Other multi-parameter indices like the subscription-based Index Copernicus have not helped to resolve the situation. The patented and undisclosed black box algorithm of the Index Copernicus has just replaced one yardstick by another even less accessible one. Moreover, the academic as author, editor and/or reviewer, under intense competitive pressure, is forced to play the publishing game where such numbers rule, leading to fre- quent abuses of power. However, there are also deep paradoxes at the heart of this siege. Electronic software for producing camera-ready-copy, LaTeX style files, the internet and technology mean that it has never been easier or cheaper to publish than it is today. Despite this, top journals are charging exorbitant prices for authors to publish and for readers to access their articles. Academic libraries are feeling the pinch the most and are being forced to cut journal subscriptions. Not surprisingly, schol- ars in droves are declaring their independence from commercial publishers and are moving to open access journals or are self-archiving their articles in public domain pre-print servers. That this move- ment is starting to hurt the big publishing houses is evidenced by their use of counter-tactics such as proprietary pre-print servers and pure propaganda in their attempts to guard against profit loss. Whether or not bibliometry will be an artefact in the future depends on the outcome of this battle. Here, we review the current status of this siege, how it arose and how it is likely to evolve. KEY WORDS: Academic journals · Power law · Biomedicine · Bibliometric indices · Quality · Evaluation · Open access · Publishing model Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION Scientists and the results that they produce differ greatly with respect to originality and impact within The advancement of science is based on a process of their own fields of study and on society at large. This accumulating knowledge. Each new experiment or calls for a system of evaluation when it comes to choos- theoretical idea is always built in part on the results of ing which paper to read, to cite, or which person to hire previous research studies. Thus, essential to the evolu- in a research center. tion of scientific knowledge is an efficient system of The traditional printed journals have been the pri- communicating results and ideas within the academic mary means of communicating research results, and as community. such have performed an invaluable service. They have *Email: [email protected] © Inter-Research 2008 · www.int-res.com 18 Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8: 17–40, 2008 also served as an evaluation system since, by virtue of commodifying scientific publishing. We will then exam- a thorough and objective peer review process by the ine the various bibliometric indices used for academic scientists involved with them, they have, by and large, evaluation and we will show how they are participating helped to maintain high standards. Each academic in the fortification of a large commercial publisher mo- field has its own key journals, and publishing in one of nopoly. We will focus on the mis-use of these indices them has always been considered as an index of acad- and their manipulation by authors, reviewers and edi- emic quality and prestige. tors, locked in a continuous battle for power, money Things are changing quickly. There is a rapid and prestige. Finally, we will examine the new initia- growth in the number of new researchers, publica- tives appearing on the academic horizon to surmount tions, scientific journals and academic fields each year, these problems, such as the development of new open and hence also of scholarly literature and demand for access bibliometric indices and publishing models that access to it by an increasing number of institutes and offset the costs currently paid to journals by authors universities. Publishing houses have realised that sci- and readers to fund open access alternatives. ence is big business. As a result, purely commercial interests have gained sway over many of the journals that we depend on for research information. Maximiz- THE COMMERCIALISATION OF INFORMATION ing profits has become the controlling goal; a system that should serve the academic community and the The crisis public is now at the mercy of corporate acquisitions and profit-oriented planners, while the smaller pub- A wave of mergers in the publishing business has lishers and societies left out from this race are being created giant firms with the power to extract ever forced to meet the same challenges. Disseminating higher journal prices from university libraries (Lips- scholarly research seems to have become something of comb 2001). A few commercial publishers discovered an afterthought. More worryingly still, more and more that the easiest way to increase profits was to raise authors are reporting on the rise of censorship created subscription prices and, specifically, that the fattest by such a concentration of power. Bauer (2004) states: profits came from raising library subscription prices ‘Minority views on technical issues are largely absent aggressively and relentlessly. Institutional subscribers, from the public arena… Since corporate scientific organi- accounting for the lion’s share of the revenue support- zations also control the funding of research, by denying ing publication of journals in most fields, paid the price funds for unorthodox work they function as research car- tels as well as knowledge monopolies… What national (reluctantly and with increasing difficulty) because and international organizations publicly proclaim as sci- their users demanded access. With one foot in the door, entific information is not safeguarded by the traditional these few commercial publishers built substantial port- process of peer review... the media need to know about folios of journals. The purchase of Harcourt General by and have access to the whole spectrum of scientific opin- Reed Elsevier is a prime example. The resulting ion on the given issue… A constant dilemma for reporters is that they need access to sources, and if they publish union — with the addition of the science, technical, and material that casts doubt on the official view, they risk medical (STM) division of Harcourt — controls more losing access to official sources… In the bygone era, than 1500 journals, calculated to include 34% of the trustworthy science depended on scientists doing the mainstream biomedical journals tracked by the Insti- right thing even when that did not immediately serve their personal purposes. In the new era of corporate sci- tute for Scientific Information (ISI) (Malakoff 2000). ence, the desires of individuals to serve the public good The high profits from these journals have funded fur- do not suffice to ensure that corporate actions will serve ther acquisitions and consolidations among publishers, the public good.’ and often these profits are diverted out of scientific This explosion of academic literature has also made activities into unrelated lines of business in order to the problem of evaluation of science even more difficult. enhance shareholder value. Feder et al. (2005) state: Quantitative indices (based on citation rates) that have ‘Can you imagine a company that simultaneously pro- been proposed as measures of academic performance, motes arms sales and publishes health journals? Well, although in common use, have proven to be inappropri- you don’t have to imagine such a company — because it ate for the evaluation of individual scientists (Seglen exists. Indeed, it is Reed Elsevier, the world’s largest publisher of scientific and medical journals. And the finest of 1997). A consequence of this is that new alternative mea- Reed Elsevier’s journals is The Lancet, the leading global sures have emerged. Recent technological develop- health journal, which has been receiving much attention ments in information exchange have made it possible for from the Pentagon for its important articles showing that the scientific community to open new doors, and it is be- death rates in Iraq are far above those admitted by the ginning once again to take control over its own product. United States government.’ We will begin this review by stressing the problems Not surprisingly, such things are not taken lightly by associated with market forces taking control over and academics who resent journals investing the fruits of Taylor et al.: The siege of science 19 their labour in criminal or unethical activities and mak- Kluwer, and those charged by non-profit societies and ing access financially prohibitive to themselves and university presses. This gap widened in the 1980s and their peers.

Load more